"These are the stakes..." Economist v. Moralist

The Bottom Line

The reality is this: with the rise of individual interest (i.e desire for democracy) in Syria, the Syrian government has responded with violence to several peaceful protest. Worst of all, chemical weapons were deployed -- on citizens, WOMEN AND CHILDREN included. Should we, the world, intervene?

What does the Economist have to say about this...?

"Although there has been a mass exodus of Syrians since the civil war, and the unemployment rate is dropping to an all-time low, prospects for the future look promising. Putting it in basic terms -- after a stable force takes control over the environment, production of local goods will begin to resume and open jobs will be filled with the formerly jobless populace. Yet, with no one to buy such pricey goods, prices will be forced to plummet, allowing for the now employed population to buy, augment there lives, multiply their numbers, and be prosperous. So in the long run, this conflict will make room for more economical growth than ever before. Simply look at Japan after its reconstruction, and anyone would agree with my theory. Out with the old suffering system, in with the new... Who are we to affect the development of a nation's new economy, nay, a nation's greater prosperity?! Mandeville would find this to be fair: that in the interest of a greater economy (and thus the better welfare of future citizens), the onslaught of the many is justified. We should not intervene. Let's sit this one out, and let the fires calm themselves." - Steven Soto, the Economist

What does the Moralist have to say in response...?

"Pure utter non-sense! Of course, looking in a purely narrow point of view, the economy of that war-scarred nation would recover to a better state than pre-civil war, but is it worth it? I disagree with Mr. Soto completely, believing that the morality behind the economic system of any nation-state, i.e. Syria, defines the future of said political body. Would we have Bashar Hafez al-Assad revert the set of values in Syria's economy back to barbarianism? For anyone who knows anything about the era of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islam) in the Middle East, al-Assad would have morality set back to those dark ages. Before we know it, it'd be okay to bury alive first born female children -- rather, it'd be considered economically sound! Swift, satirist and defender of virtue in economics  would be appalled to see their values degrade to the point where citizens find it OK to eat their own youth. As far as economics are concerned, Adam Smith would agree that the means of reaching Mr. Soto's mentioned glory do not justify the means, esp. if the morality of the nation is compromised in the process...making it truly a pariah in the global community. There's no public good in this, not at all." - Steven Soto, the Moralist

Note from the Editor...

I favor the latter, rather than the former opinion. The future of lives, not simply an economy, is on the line. A mass genocide is taking place where human right are being violated. IF we were to sympathize, or empathize -- place our feet into the hell fires of the war zone, were innocent mother, father, brother, and sister are torn asunder by the raining bombshells and chemical missiles -- we would definitely find cause for a military intervention. If peace is not an option, place the knife against the enemy (not kill), and make peace an option. Our family, the global human family, is in danger. It is our obligation to end the violence against our brothers. - Steven Soto, the Editor

"These are the stakes! We are to make a world in which all of God's Children can live, or go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die." - Lyndon B. Johnson

"THE WORLD". Steven Soto. 2011  Prisma Colors on 11'' x 8.5'' drawing paper.